Affirmative action and Asian-Americans

A month or so ago, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding affirmative action in law school and undergraduate admissions in Michigan. It was such a big case that SCOTUS actually recorded the session for later broadcast. In my recollection, the only other time they have done that was in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ended the Presidential Election standoff.

To read the transcripts of oral arguments, check out the PDF files for Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger

I confess I haven't read all 100 + pages but I did skim them over and I heard the session on NPR.

The Asian-Pacific American (APA) community is generally pretty quiet politically. I can't say I"m really in tune with what APA's who are politically active are saying. This issue is particularly difficult to address for APAs because on one hand, APAs remain a definite ethnic minority group in the USA but on the other hand, APAs do not benefit and in some instance are hindered by affirmative action in the context of college admissions which is where the legal action is right now.

The Constitutional issue at hand is how strictly SCOTUS believes the 14th Amendment should be adhered to. A very strict view would strike down any race based admission system hands down because that would violate equal protection. However, as with any law, if there is a compelling interest then strict interpretation can be waived in favor of that other interest. And I suppose equal protection is an ideal but in some cases it may simply be impractical and the burden of trying to enforce it is so burdensome or outright impossible.

What is the 14th Amendment about? Here is the main point, direct quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As I see it, there are 4 possible ways the APA community can look at the issue of using race as a factor in college admissions.
1. Support them to show solidarity with other minority groups in the USA.
2. Oppose them on the simple grounds they hurt APA admissions.
3. Oppose them on the grounds that the ideal for society is total color blindness and that at some point we should reach that state and perhaps the time is now.
4. Support affirmative action provisionally because we haven't reached the ideal yet.

1. Support them to show solidarity with other minority groups in the USA.

In the case before the Court, three ethnic groups got 20 bonus points (out of a max 150) to help them in admissions scoring. APAs are NOT listed as one of the three disadvantaged groups. In California, APAs often lost admissions to thier first choice University of California schools because of such point systems. It is my understanding that in California such explicit scoring is illegal. Nonetheless, some APAs may feel we need to stand with other minority groups because we may need their support on some other issues.

2. Oppose them on the simple grounds they hurt APA admissions.

This is the most straight-forward self-interest arguement that APAs might make to oppose affirmative action. I've always been a little leary of ethnic-based political advocacy groups. On one hand, I do value them as watchdogs to point out to media, the public, elected officials and government when aggregious racism is found. That kind of stuff still happens often enough that minority groups do need an organized voice. However, unfortunately, there are times when advocacy groups claim racism when none is there. Also, some advocacy groups degenerate into a politics of grievance and resentment resulting in some very shrill rabble rousing. I'm thankful that in the USA, our differences haven't descended into the kind of violence that tore up the former Yugoslavia. Nonetheless, at times, there is a terrible Balkanization of our political discourse.

3. Oppose them on the grounds that the ideal for society is total color blindness and that at some point we should reach that state and perhaps the time is now.

Martin Luther King in his famed, "I have a dream" speech wished for the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Ultimately, I hope we can reach a day in our society when a college admissions committee simply tallies up the SAT, GPA and class rank and puts all the qualified applicants in a bin and randomly picks the ones who get admitted to their first choice school.

4. Support affirmative action provisionally because we haven't reached the ideal yet.

I agree we haven't reached that totally color blind world. Poor minority students often wind up with inferior education K-12 and are disadvantaged when applying to college. As a matter of public policy, I believe diversity has a value, in fact, a very specific economic value. In the era of globalization, the ability to understand and relate to people who are different will be an advantage. There are few institutions in American life that allow for the mixing of ethnic groups and of individuals of differing social-ecomic status. The university is one such place although a limited one as not every one can go or desires to go to college.

On the opposite side, I think those who argue that those who lose out on their first choice of college are "damaged" emotionally or economically are definitely overstating their case. Is it that big a difference if you go to Top 10 University X or you go to Top 50 University Y? And of course, one can always cite the various college drop outs who have done well!

But in regards to diversity in American life, at one time, the US had the military draft and that kind of people mixing would occur albeit imperfectly. But, since the draft no longer exists, what institution in our society has the potential and actual diversity that would be beneficial?

Ideally, the Christian church could be one important place. But in practice, the worship hour is unfortunately one of the most segregated hours of the week. Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely a place for immigrant congregations where language is a key factor. However, beyond that, one would think Christians would be in the forefront of encouraging diverse multi-ethnic and social-economic celebration and acceptance.

As for the case before SCOTUS, I think they will strike down the Michigan admissions protocols but their ruling will be casted narrowly. The case has been made that diversity is a compelling interest but that the specific program in question is unconstitutional. Anybody out there can dream up a better admissions scheme? Would love to hear it!